guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Defiant Elements/RFA
The role of bureaucrats Instigators of discussion. Auron's biggest complaint about RfAs is that they aren't useful because they don't usually generate any discussion. If ya want discussion, ya might as well start some yerself. Press other users to better explain their opinions, present counter-arguments, anything to impel other users to do more than post a single comment and leave. —Dr Ishmael 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC) :Frankly, RfA is fine as it is. All this would do is make official policy closer to what you should have done last time. Not to sound accusing, but there's no reason to amend policy just because you screwed up on the community side of Phalange's promotion. If you wait just 3 days to promote a user no one else knows about, of course it's going to cause controversy. A normal nomination of an active, trusted community member doesn't cause problems. And frankly, I doubt a strange situation like Phalange is likely to come up any time soon. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 01:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC) ::What I'' should have done :/? I'm confused... are you addressing Auron? Also, this really has very little to do with Phalange's nomination/promotion except in so far as it caused discussion and drama which made it clear (to me) that there was a reasonably fundamental difference of opinions when it came to the "considerations" I list on this page (thus the revamp). [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] [[user talk:Defiant Elements|+talk'']] 09:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC) :::Oops, yeah, addressing Auron. d'oh. Anyway, he screwed up, but I hope he learned his lesson and won't incite any more wiki-drama next time. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Whether or not Auron learned his lesson (whether or not he even believes there's a lesson to be learned other than "Next time, don't create an RFA") is immaterial. Now that the question's been raised, I think it's important to at least make an attempt to clarify/revamp the policy. If people decide the final product is a bad/unnecessary idea, that's fine. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) :::::True, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to, shall we say, encourage Auron to do future RfA's in the same way our previous beurocrats did. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 15:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Meh. At the moment, I'm thinking the most viable option would be to combine the 2nd and 3rd options listed under "Possibilities" which would be a semi-radical change (2 wouldn't be so radical, but 3 probably would). It's not about "putting Auron in his place so that this never happens again," it's about taking a critical look at the policy and seeing if it's an accurate reflection of the way things work, the way things maybe "should" work, etc. And, if it turns out that it doesn't (which seems to be the case to me given the wikidrama) then it should be revised (which is what I'm suggesting). [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC) shift emphasis to a discussion The current RfA process doesn't have an aim because there is no clear consensus what makes a good admin. As long as that issue remains unadressed, you can tinker with the mechanics all you want - all you'll achieve is that you'll favor someone's hidden agenda because it might favor a style of candidate over another - and it is not clear which style, much less why. So the solution is to put that aim in the spotlight. What are we looking for in an admin? Do we find it in the candidate? If the community addresses these questions, then the Bureaucrats will find their decisions made lighter. I have put a tentative list up at User:M.mendel/Admin Criteria. Please comment on that and help make it better. No mechanism can prevent a Bureaucrat from abusing his power. As regards your point 2, I would suggest that "Bureaucrats provide a reason" not only "when acting in defiance of community consensus", but for most of their decisions. PanSola usually does that admirably, and JediRogue's did it here. Entropy set a bad precedent here, at least in my eyes, because I do not understand even today what motivated her Bureaucrat promotions. I also expect of Bureacrats that they respect and, if need be, seek out community opinion on important issues before forming a decision, excepting emergencies, of course. --◄mendel► 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC) :As to defining what makes a good admin, if you intend it as anything other than a WikiEssay, it's a horrendous idea. Yes, there are general things you look for in an Admin, but trying to take a list of "objective" criteria and apply them to every candidate and then basing decisions on that set list of criteria is a crappy idea. They're indicators at best. Besides, there's no one "template" or "definition" which can ever hope to define a good admin properly and not everyone is gonna agree on whether candidate X fits that template anyway, so what's the point? I also don't like the implication that it's intended to make the decision for the Bureaucrats. That said, if you're just trying to get down some thoughts on various things people should take into account (among others), I don't have a problem with it. Either way though, it doesn't change the fact that I want to revamp RFA. Regarding Bureaucrats providing a reason, yes, it's always a good idea to provide a reason, but the important note to make is that the issue I'm attempting to address is transparency, and the only time there's a lack of transparency (or at least, a major one) is when a Bureaucrat defies community consensus without a reason. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) :: Yes, I agree they're indicators - better than the "support - oppose - neutral" criteria that we're using as indicators now, with sometimes haphazard opinions to enlarge on them. If one of us had gone down that list for R.Phalange, Auron would have had a hard(er) time to dismiss our opinions out of hand when making his decision. :: I do not anywhere imply that this is meant to make the decision for the Bureaucrat. If the Bureaucrat is meant to make a decision alone, the RfA as it is established is a farce. The RfA is there to help the Bureaucrat decide, not to make the decision for her - that's as it always was. What changes might be the sections on an empty RfA, or maybe just what people will write for an opinion. :: When a Bureaucrat defies community consensus without a reason, no policy or mechanism can mitigate that except a way to have her or him removed from office - and I am NOT suggesting that. --◄mendel► 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC) :::That's funny, Mendel. No matter how many times I tried to explain myself, no one ever listened, and they just stuck to their preconceived notions of what a bureaucrat ought to be...only a very few people such as Auron, PanSola, and to a lesser extent JediRogue really understood and listened. (Do those names sound familiar? hmm) And as to "explaining myself" for my decisions, I must conclude that you either do not read what I write or that you have not paid much attention. If I set any precedent, it was for walloftext arguments and explanations. The "Bureaucrat" page itself was a wonderful mess, and about the best example you can find of "admins going horribly wrong" in process, but I think you have to admit that we all share the blame for that incident... :::Comment for DE - peronally, I support the "minor change" to say that Bureaucrats have 100% power in the process. Since it's, you know, the truth. Even if the community hates to admit it. The requirement of multi-bureaucrat interaction is flawed on two grounds. (1) The GuildWiki system isn't designed to work that way, since we have never had more than one active bureaucrat in the past. In fact the whole notion of bureaucrat's' is quite a novelty here. I think it may have been a mistake to not choose only 1 person now. This may have roots in the whole system of admin's' + 1 bureaucrat itself, and changing that framework would be...bad. (2) If GW:ADMIN is anything to go on, bureaucrats ought to be treated the same way as admins warring over a ban - action is taken (a promotion/failed RfA) and if later it seems like a bad decision, it gets overturned. Finally I have issues with anything which makes the RfA process ultimately more like a "vote" where a "simple majority" actually has meaning...requiring bureaucrats to explain themselves against a "consensus" is also, frankly, bullshit which puts undue pressure on either the bureaucrat to appease the community, or the community to gang up on the bureaucrat whenever they demand an explanation. Transparancy is cool but as the ungodly "Bureaucrat" oage showed, it is also a double edged sword. (T/ ) 10:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Hmmmm... interesting point about the "simple majority among Bureaucrats" possibility. As to the explanation, as long as we're clear that Bureaucrats have 100% authority anyways (regardless of the response to the explanation), I don't think it's an undue strain on the Bureaucrats. If the community is clamoring for an explanation, they are almost certainly doing so with or without the blessing of policy, might as well "head them off" so to speak by being at least somewhat transparent before everything goes to hell. Besides, their explanation doesn't have to appease anyone, it just has to be an explanation; if people don't like the explanation, tough, but at least they can't complain there was no transparency. What's your opinion on getting rid of Support/Oppose/Neutral and replacing it with a discussion page (I'm still trying to decide to what extent that discussion should be structured, if at all)? ::::Oh, and this isn't exactly the right place for this, but I'm glad to know that you're still watching over us (even if not as frequently) although even I'm getting a little tired of the walls of text :P. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Entropy, I am sorry if that came across wrong. You have always exlained your decisions very thoroughly, and that set a very high standard. The one set of decisions you have not explained (which sets the precedent) are the promotions. You did take part in the discussions (unlike Auron), but you never posted (and I have just now looked over your contribs and couldn't find it) what finally made you promote these three people. --◄mendel► 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC) :::::I am sitting here lmao at the fact that you guys think bcrats have 100% authority. Wikia has more power than you, and tbh if concenus is in place we can always go over your heads. Wanna see the reality of it; with the wikia move, bcrats have about as much authority as any other user. Here comes the darts... --''Shadowphoenix'' 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Wikia has no jurisdiction whatsoever. They are simply the hosts for the wiki, they do not regulate it in any way -- especially if all bureaucrats are united in opinion. If there was one bureaucrat that was actually a vandal or some such, perhaps they would temporarily demote; however, that's certainly not the case here. --R Phalange 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Keep telling yourself that; but running wikis is Wikia's business. I doubt they are gonna let bcrats go on power trips. Honestly, sysops and bcrats are users with extra tools that is really all; they are not supreme overlords of the wiki. As history has proven, the "people" always have more power then the "leaders" as a whole. Don't give me the crap about how those princiables can't be used here and yada yada yada; because they can. --''Shadowphoenix'' 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::"Your judgment is terrible." Wikia has about as much power over us, as ANet does over GWW and GW2W. Which is to say, precious little, because the do not choose to use that power. Why? Because we hardly matter at all...they devolve the authority to us since they would prefer we be autonomous and self-sufficient as much as possible. They quite frankly do not have the manpower. You keep entertaining those fantasies of a proletariat user revolution usurping the Wiki for the good of the people's consensus; it makes me laugh. In fact I challenge you to try and get the Wikia staff involved in any of our bureaucratic business here. (T/ ) 23:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::(edit conflict) Tbh, R.Phalange hit the nail on the head with Wikia. They are only here to host the wiki and make money off of it. They don't really have anything to do with how we "govern" outselves- the only thing they would do is demote a rogue bureaucrat, or any other request a bureaucrat might make of them (such as Entropy asking KyleH to demote felix omni, since she lost that power when we moved to wikia). In the case of "concensus > bcrats", that's clearly not the case. Simple example- the concensus on R.Phalange's RFA was 100% oppose- but he was promoted anyway. The bureaucrats aren't bound by concensus at all- they may want it, but they most certainly do not have to abide by it. Another example- builds wipe. Did most people want it to happen? No. Did it happen anyway? Indeed. (Again, note- this is not a jab at Auron.) --Shadowcrest 00:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::We have about as much power over wikia as they do over us. The community's biggest trump card is that the license is CC and we can port all information over to another server as long as it was all intact. Just keep that in mind. Wikia only hosts the content. We, as a community, own the content and more or less, the right to govern ourselves as we please. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 11:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)